# Does Mirror Image stack with miss chance effects

### Rules Questions

 51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Imagine you're standing on the bank of a still lake on a clear night, and in the sky you see a distant star going supernova, bright enough to be reflected on the surface of the lake.

When you point at the supernova, even if you could instantly stretch your finger across the reaches of the universe, you wouldn't be able to touch it, because the supernova happened thousands of years ago. To you, it appears there, now, in the sky, but it isn't actually there, and hasn't been there since long before you were born.

When you point to the image in the lake, you point at the image. The image isn't actually thousands of light years away, it's a few feet away. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is thousands of years old, it just reflects it. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is from an explosion that dwarfed the size of the solar system, it reflects the spec of light that reaches it.

Mirror image only cares about the appearance of things, and strives to appear as it's caster does. It only has it's own substance from which to draw. If you could somehow only hit the illusionary flames simulating the caster's fire shield, you would have hit the mirror image itself and destroyed it. If the caster benefits from displacement and appears 2 ft to the left, all the images ARE 2 ft to the left. What and where the caster appears to be are not always the same thing. The images are always precisely where and 'what*' they appear to be.

*'What' insomuch as they are illusions. If the caster APPEARS to be a duck, the images ARE ducks.

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:

Imagine you're standing on the bank of a still lake on a clear night, and in the sky you see a distant star going supernova, bright enough to be reflected on the surface of the lake.

When you point at the supernova, even if you could instantly stretch your finger across the reaches of the universe, you wouldn't be able to touch it, because the supernova happened thousands of years ago. To you, it appears there, now, in the sky, but it isn't actually there, and hasn't been there since long before you were born.

When you point to the image in the lake, you point at the image. The image isn't actually thousands of light years away, it's a few feet away. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is thousands of years old, it just reflects it. The lake doesn't care that the light it's reflecting is from an explosion that dwarfed the size of the solar system, it reflects the spec of light that reaches it.

Mirror image only cares about the appearance of things, and strives to appear as it's caster does. It only has it's own substance from which to draw. If you could somehow only hit the illusionary flames simulating the caster's fire shield, you would have hit the mirror image itself and destroyed it. If the caster benefits from displacement and appears 2 ft to the left, all the images ARE 2 ft to the left. What and where the caster appears to be are not always the same thing. The images are always precisely where and 'what*' they appear to be.

*'What' insomuch as they are illusions. If the caster APPEARS to be a duck, the images ARE ducks.

Physics nitpick : reflections from surfaces are actually virtually located behind the surface, so your reflected supernova is actually thousands of light years behind the lake. Any measurements you can perform using parallax to measure the distance will get you the far result, not the distance to the surface of the lake. You can confirm this with simple experiments using a normal mirror in your bathroom.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Quote:

Natural 20 and Natural 1: On attack rolls and saving throws, a natural 20 is an automatic success and a natural 1 is an automatic failure. But should I treat them differently than other results when deciding if a roll succeeded or failed by 5 or more, when comparing two opposed attack rolls to see which is a higher result, or other similar situations?

No, unless a specific rule tells you otherwise, treat a natural 20 or natural 1 result on an attack roll or saving throw the same as any other result when comparing the total result to other numbers. For example, if a fighter rolls a natural 1 for a total of 31 against the wizard’s AC of 33, the attack misses by 5 or less and destroys one of the wizard’s mirror images.

Yes, I am aware of what it says and does not say. In fact, you cut out the part where I already addressed that FAQ as non-applicable.

If you are checking for concealment you have, explicitly, not missed on your attack roll by any value. You rolled high enough to hit.

Only after you have resolved that the attack roll is sufficient to hit target's AC do you resolve conditions such as cover and concealment. This is a separate process from the attack roll. At this point the target of the attack, not the attacker, gets to make his own die roll to negate your successful attack roll. If the target is successful, he is not struck.

1) You did not miss by 5 or less - do not automatically pop an image
2) You did not strike your target - do not check to see if an image was hit instead of the target.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Here's how I do it:

Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.

Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.

If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.

Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.

Neither side persuaded me until this argument. It seems to be the most logical. I hit FAQ but will use this until it is settled.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
ryric wrote:

Here's how I do it:

Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.

Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.

If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.

Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.

Neither side persuaded me until this argument. It seems to be the most logical. I hit FAQ but will use this until it is settled.
Concealment wrote:
Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck

The attack roll does not miss, the defender avoids being struck.

Different mechanics, resolved separately from each other, by different individuals.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
ryric wrote:

Here's how I do it:

Did you miss the target's AC? Did you get within 5? Then an image is destroyed. Concealment miss chance is immaterial because mirror image does not specify how you have to miss, just a miss by less than 5 destroys an image.

Did you hit the target's AC? Check to see if you hit an image. If you did, miss change is still immaterial because you either hit the image, destroying it, or you miss due to miss chance, which is a miss by less than 5, destroying an image.

If you hit the target's AC, and did not hit an image, check for concealment miss chance. If you hit, do damage. If you miss, destroy an image, because you have now missed by less than 5.

Basically, if you beat the target's AC yet miss anyway, you have innately missed by less than 5 and pop an image.

Miss than less than 5 has a pretty specific meaning, that is, if your roll would have been 4 higher, you would have hit.

When you miss due to a miss chance, you don't 'miss by less than 5', you miss, period. If your roll is 4 higher, 10 higher, or 19 higher, you still would have missed. That, in my book, is not the same as missing by less than 5.

Or, put it another way, lets say the target is 'blinking'. You miss because the target (and his images) aren't even on the prime material plane. You still think you destroy an image if you 'miss by less than 5'?

That same argument applied to rolling Natural 1s and 20s, and the FAQ says you still lose an image despite the fixed result of the dice roll.

Granted, blinking isn't the same thing, an argument can be made for other sorts of miss chance as well, which is what is being argued here.

The FAQ has nothing to do with it, at all. The FAQ says nothing about miss chances, and the FAQ does not, in any way, contradict my interpretation. If someone rolls a natural 1, and they miss by less than 5, than adding 4 to their roll would mean that they hit.

If someone rolls a one, and the target and the images aren't even on the material plane, then they miss. Not by less than 5 since adding 4 would still mean a miss. They miss by more than 10, by more than 100, by more than 1000. They just miss.

Period.

Since you recognize that 'blinking isn't the same thing' as blur, then you realize that any specific argument made about blurred images, missing, and destroying images is irrelevant to the larger issue at hand, and there certainly are no rules that specify you handle misses from blur differently than misses from blinking.

Therefore we must come up with a rule that covers both misses from concealment, and other cases such as not actually being corporeal.

_Ozy_ wrote:

The FAQ has nothing to do with it, at all. The FAQ says nothing about miss chances, and the FAQ does not, in any way, contradict my interpretation. If someone rolls a natural 1, and they miss by less than 5, than adding 4 to their roll would mean that they hit.

If someone rolls a one, and the target and the images aren't even on the material plane, then they miss. Not by less than 5 since adding 4 would still mean a miss. They miss by more than 10, by more than 100, by more than 1000. They just miss.

Period.

Since you recognize that 'blinking isn't the same thing' as blur, then you realize that any specific argument made about blurred images, missing, and destroying images is irrelevant to the larger issue at hand, and there certainly are no rules that specify you handle misses from blur differently than misses from blinking.

Therefore we must come up with a rule that covers both misses from concealment, and other cases such as not actually being corporeal.

you know that blind fight feat state that the feat is useless against blink and even blink say that because the subject goes to the ethereal plane as they are about to get hit, so if you are on the ethereal plane then the mirror image are also in the ethereal plane and thus the miss chance applies to them because they are not on the same plane

John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

The FAQ has nothing to do with it, at all. The FAQ says nothing about miss chances, and the FAQ does not, in any way, contradict my interpretation. If someone rolls a natural 1, and they miss by less than 5, than adding 4 to their roll would mean that they hit.

If someone rolls a one, and the target and the images aren't even on the material plane, then they miss. Not by less than 5 since adding 4 would still mean a miss. They miss by more than 10, by more than 100, by more than 1000. They just miss.

Period.

Since you recognize that 'blinking isn't the same thing' as blur, then you realize that any specific argument made about blurred images, missing, and destroying images is irrelevant to the larger issue at hand, and there certainly are no rules that specify you handle misses from blur differently than misses from blinking.

Therefore we must come up with a rule that covers both misses from concealment, and other cases such as not actually being corporeal.

you know that blind fight feat state that the feat is useless against blink and even blink say that because the subject goes to the ethereal plane as they are about to get hit, so if you are on the ethereal plane then the mirror image are also in the ethereal plane and thus the miss chance applies to them because they are not on the same plane

Yes, I do know that. Do you know that only part of the blink 50% miss chance is from being on the ethereal plane (20%) and 20% is due to concealment?

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Yes, I am aware of what it says and does not say. In fact, you cut out the part where I already addressed that FAQ as non-applicable.

Dallium wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No, I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that, because an image is blurry, and you hit the blurry part of the image, you still hit the image because the blur is part of the image's appearance. Problem is, the distortion isn't what the image itself actually is, as that's simulated with a 20% miss chance of you not actually touching where the original image is, as per the effects of Blur. By that logic, Blur does nothing to the original caster because the blurry part of the caster is still part of the caster, so I should've still hit the caster anyway.

You can't make an argument that Blur doesn't apply to the Mirror Images, or vice-versa, without breaking a key functionality of either spell. Blur's sole purpose is to make you look distorted without actually being distorted, and Mirror Images are meant to be exact copies of you, spell effects included.

I don't think you've a leg to stand on with any of this.

Firstly, the image is objectively not under the mechanical effects of Blur. Nobody cast Blur on those images, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that you COULD deliberately target them to cast Blur on them. The image looks blurry because it's trying to mimic it's caster, but there is only one illusion going on there; mirror image. It's just an simulation of blur, not good enough. A mirror image illusion wrapped in a blur illusion would benefit from blur. That isn't the case here.

Secondly, the notion that somehow this logic carries over to blur having no effect is strained at best. The caster has an illusion laid over them to appear somewhere they aren't, something the images don't have. Blur is not disrupted by near misses. An attacker can strike at what appears to be the caster while "hitting" a visual-only illusion. The image is only pretending to have a second illusion layered over it. The only actual illusion present is mirror image, so any part of the total effect that it hit is actually the mirror image. Hit the blurry...

Making you look distorted is precisely all that the Blur spell does, which is mechanically simulated by granting a 20% miss chance. When you make a spell effect that's entirely visual, and you have a different effect that mimicks those exact visuals, it's basically impossible to argue that they don't receive that spell effect without breaking the fundamentals between either effect involved. Which is basically was Murdock was trying to do (and failed).

It's not strained logic at all. If the Mirror Images are supposed to mimick your visuals exactly, then I fail to see how Blur, a purely visual effect, doesn't transmute over to them, both mechanically and visually. After all, if I Polymorph into a Dragon, have my AC change based off of my new form, wouldn't the Mirror Images now have the new and adjusted AC (for the purposes of calculating near misses)? According to you, they wouldn't, based on you saying Blur doesn't transfer. Which is ironic, since that means if you try to buff yourself after Mirror Images is cast, those effects don't transfer to the Mirror Images, which means it's just as easy to pop them as if you weren't even buffed in the first place.

What I'm contending is that, to a visual degree, spell effects on the caster transfer to the Mirror Images, because if they didn't, then Mirror Images would break and not work as they're intended to. And based on my above argument, I'd have to say that the spell effects are transferred to a degree even greater than that, since then we'd have to sit there and calculate what the Mirror Image AC would be if spell effects (such as Mage Armor) didn't factor into your Mirror Images.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, does it make any sense that mirror images would have any AC larger than your base + size + dex? No.

But it's magic.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The blurry part of an image is still a part of the image.

Really, I think most sources of concealment would be effective, just not other illusion spells.

KingOfAnything wrote:

The blurry part of an image is still a part of the image.

Really, I think most sources of concealment would be effective, just not other illusion spells.

That's an assumption, in fact two assumptions.

1) that the 'blurry' part of the image is provided by mirror image instead of the 'blurred' part of your location being much larger than the area occupied by the images.

2) that the 20% 'miss chance' indicates that you hit a blurred area instead of just being misled into striking in some area that isn't occupied by either you or the image.

reasonable assumptions, sure, but assumptions nonetheless. There's nothing actually in the rules that define this.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Making you look distorted is precisely all that the Blur spell does, which is mechanically simulated by granting a 20% miss chance.

If you want to talk semantics, Blur mechanically grants concealment to the subject of the spell. The conceptual explanation of how it does so is irrelevant.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When you make a spell effect that's entirely visual, and you have a different effect that mimicks those exact visuals, it's basically impossible to argue that they don't receive that spell effect without breaking the fundamentals between either effect involved.

Not only is it not "basically impossible," it's the only argument that makes any sense whatsoever. You're arguing that the image can just grant itself concealment because. Just because. The only thing it can possibly use to grant itself concealment is itself. If the caster holds a blanket up in front of themselves, they might, theoretically, if the GM is feeling particularly generous, grant themselves concealment, because you don't know exactly where behind the blanket they are. The Mirror Images, being mirror images, would also hold up blankets, but since those blankets are part of the images, they wouldn't grant concealment even if that tactic worked for the caster. The caster has a physical blanket that isn't made of caster. The images don't.

Again, if you could directly cast Blur on one of the images (somehow), you would have an independent illusion over another independent illusion, in which case everything is hunky dory.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If the Mirror Images are supposed to mimick your visuals exactly, then I fail to see how Blur, a purely visual effect, doesn't transmute over to them, both mechanically and visually.

Well, it doesn't transfer mechanically because Mirror Image doesn't say anything about effects like Blur transferring in it's spell description, and Blur doesn't say anything about transferring to effects like Mirror Image in its description. Mechanically speaking, no interaction.

Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
After all, if I Polymorph into a Dragon, have my AC change based off of my new form, wouldn't the Mirror Images now have the new and adjusted AC (for the purposes of calculating near misses)? According to you, they wouldn't, based on you saying Blur doesn't transfer.

Uh, yeah, the AC change doesn't transfer to the images, but not because Blur doesn't transfer. It doesn't transfer because Images don't have an AC for any purposes. The caster has an AC, not the images.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
What I'm contending is that, to a visual degree, spell effects on the caster transfer to the Mirror Images, because if they didn't, then Mirror Images would break and not work as they're intended to.

I mostly agree with this.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And based on my above argument, I'd have to say that the spell effects are transferred to a degree even greater than that, since then we'd have to sit there and calculate what the Mirror Image AC would be if spell effects (such as Mage Armor) didn't factor into your Mirror Images.

And I'd have to say you'd be wrong in every case where the actual mechanics of the effect don't at least imply they would transfer to any illusion effects the target is subject to.

Also Mirror Images don't have an AC. The caster does.

Dallium wrote:
Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Assuming that the blurred region created by the blur spell isn't large enough to cover the region in which the mirror images exist in the first place.

Which isn't actually specified anywhere AFAIK.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Assuming that the blurred region created by the blur spell isn't large enough to cover the region in which the mirror images exist in the first place.

Which isn't actually specified anywhere AFAIK.

Blur wrote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering.

Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

Assuming that the blurred region created by the blur spell isn't large enough to cover the region in which the mirror images exist in the first place.

Which isn't actually specified anywhere AFAIK.

Blur wrote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering.

Obviously the outline needs to be rather large given the 20% miss chance. If the outline were small, there would be no miss chance at all.

So, how large is the outline? The rules don't say. 1"? I hardly think so. 1'? Maybe. 3? Maybe. 'Realistically' speaking, it would have to be quite large, otherwise just aiming for the center of the 'blur' would be quite sufficient to hit every time.

So no, despite what you might think, it's not 'waffling' to note that the rules are in fact silent on those sorts of details.

Dallium wrote:

How can you possibly equate "the image only looks blurred, it isn't actually blurred" with "polymorph renders the spell useless."?

I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this. For an image to appear blurred, something has to blur it. If someone somehow casts a blur spell on it, great, the blur spell handles the blurring, and it gets all the benefits of the blur spell. In absence of another effect, the spell adapts itself to appear to be blurred. It isn't actually blurred.

You were the one that said NO SPELL EFFECTS are upon the Mirror Images, then you become selective "the spell effects I don't want to apply are not on it and the ones I want to apply are". I am taking the psoition Mirror Images appear exactly as you appear now. Blur is not REAL - it is an illusion, a trick of the mind, once you see it it has this effect - 20% miss chance and if you miss because of this 20% miss chance YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY HIT THE TARGET.

So there are two paths you can follow regarding an already Blurred caster casting Mirror Image.

1) The spell Blur says the target is creature touched, the mirror images are not blurred because they were never creature touched, you get one blurry figure with a number of non-blurry figments. This is the path I don't like (but would accept as being in accordance with the spells).

2) The Mirror Images create blurry figments and if you strike the blurry part (20%) you MISS the actual figment. This is an effect of an illusion. If you have a fire shield up, all the figments would appear to have fire shields but if you struck a figment the fire shield is an illusion and has no effect. Blur is ALREADY an illusions, your mind has already been impacted the moment you saw them, you miss because of striking a untrue part of the figment, you missed the figment.

Bot are acceptable, you want a admixture - the images are blurry but not really. If you buy into that nonsense, then the blurry images should actually be easier to hit because there are 20% "more" of them because they are blurry - the part that would normally result in a miss because that part of the figment is not really there.

 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?

_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?

because they look like that they are only image, you hit a part of the image you still hit it no matter how it look, i can draw a image that look shifting and wavering but if i hit that part is till hit the image, everything about an image is part of an image

_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?

I've been having this discussion with Dallium for some time now and each time I think we both get wordier - but you just summed it up in succinct and clear language.

Thanks! THAT should be the FAQ answer.....

John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?
because they look like that they are only image, you hit a part of the image you still hit it no matter how it look, i can draw a image that look shifting and wavering but if i hit that part is till hit the image, everything about an image is part of an image

I don't think you understand what 'shifting and wavering' means.

If an image shifts right before you hit where it has shifted from then you have not actually hit the image.

Dallium wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Making you look distorted is precisely all that the Blur spell does, which is mechanically simulated by granting a 20% miss chance.

If you want to talk semantics, Blur mechanically grants concealment to the subject of the spell. The conceptual explanation of how it does so is irrelevant.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When you make a spell effect that's entirely visual, and you have a different effect that mimicks those exact visuals, it's basically impossible to argue that they don't receive that spell effect without breaking the fundamentals between either effect involved.

Not only is it not "basically impossible," it's the only argument that makes any sense whatsoever. You're arguing that the image can just grant itself concealment because. Just because. The only thing it can possibly use to grant itself concealment is itself. If the caster holds a blanket up in front of themselves, they might, theoretically, if the GM is feeling particularly generous, grant themselves concealment, because you don't know exactly where behind the blanket they are. The Mirror Images, being mirror images, would also hold up blankets, but since those blankets are part of the images, they wouldn't grant concealment even if that tactic worked for the caster. The caster has a physical blanket that isn't made of caster. The images don't.

Again, if you could directly cast Blur on one of the images (somehow), you would have an independent illusion over another independent illusion, in which case everything is hunky dory.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If the Mirror Images are supposed to mimick your visuals exactly, then I fail to see how Blur, a purely visual effect, doesn't transmute over to them, both mechanically and visually.
Well, it doesn't transfer mechanically because Mirror Image doesn't say anything about effects like Blur transferring in it's spell description, and Blur doesn't say anything about transferring to effects like Mirror...

Yes, it is relevant, because that's how the 20% Miss Chance is emulated. If an effect visually replicates it, then I fail to see how, logically speaking, they wouldn't have the same miss chance.

No, I'm arguing that, because the images have the same visual effects as the creature that has Blur cast on it, that it would receive the same benefits. I didn't take my stance just to take a stance (AKA because I could), I took my stance based on the idea that a completely identical effect doesn't have the same results. Technically speaking, arguing otherwise would be the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again (i.e. the caster and his images having the same exact type of blur visual going on) and expecting different results (i.e. one gets the miss chance and the others don't).

If it doesn't transfer mechanically, then you can target the actual Caster and outright ignore the Mirror Images, since the visuals of Blur and the mechanics of Blur are one and the same, and you can tell which one is and isn't the caster based on having to roll a miss chance.

Not directly, it doesn't. But an Image's AC (since you can't outright target them) would be equivalent to your current AC - 5 for the purposes of removing one. Except, since you just said mechanical effects don't transfer to your Mirror Images, if you were dispelled of, for example, Mage Armor or Shield, and had to recast it, your Mirror Images' effective AC would actually be your current AC - 5, as well as the difference of any other adjustments in AC after applying Mirror Images, whether penalties or buffs. But that's if we want to argue that all mechanical effects don't transfer to your images, and that way leads to madness.

2bz2p wrote:
You were the one that said NO SPELL EFFECTS are upon the Mirror Images, then you become selective "the spell effects I don't want to apply are not on it and the ones I want to apply are".

Totally, utterly, completely false. I am not being selective. NO spell effects are upon mirror images. Zero. Nada. If the appearance of the caster changes, the images change themselves to look like the new apparance. That isn't a spell effect working on mirror image, that's the mirror image working.

2bz2p wrote:
I am taking the psoition Mirror Images appear exactly as you appear now. Blur is not REAL - it is an illusion, a trick of the mind, once you see it it has this effect - 20% miss chance and if you miss because of this 20% miss chance YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY HIT THE TARGET.

Except you did, because the blurry part of the image is still the image. For the image to be blurred, if must have blurred itself, using itself.

2bz2p wrote:

So there are two paths you can follow regarding an already Blurred caster casting Mirror Image.

1) The spell Blur says the target is creature touched, the mirror images are not blurred because they were never creature touched, you get one blurry figure with a number of non-blurry figments. This is the path I don't like (but would accept as being in accordance with the spells).

2) The Mirror Images create blurry figments and if you strike the blurry part (20%) you MISS the actual figment. This is an effect of an illusion. If you have a fire shield up, all the figments would appear to have fire shields but if you struck a figment the fire shield is an illusion and has no effect. Blur is ALREADY an illusions, your mind has already been impacted the moment you saw them, you miss because of striking a untrue part of the figment, you missed the figment.

Bot are acceptable,

Actually neither of those are acceptable. The first is saying "mirror images aren't mirror images" and the second is saying that somehow you can hit part of the image without hitting the image. The only nonsense going on here is this hullabaloo about "You can hit THIS part of the image without it counting because reasons!"

As for making blur making the images easier to hit by virtue of being larger, a) you can't directly attack images, b) even if you could they don't have an AC, and c) even if they did, they wouldn't change size category so their AC wouldn't decrease anyway.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, I'm arguing that, because the images have the same visual effects as the creature that has Blur cast on it, that it would receive the same benefits.

And that's nonsense. The caster has an magic field distorting his outline, causing the visual effect. The image is itself causing the visual effect. If you hit the visual effect around the caster, you hit a blur spell. If you hit the visual effect around the image, you hit the image.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
since the visuals of Blur and the mechanics of Blur are one and the same,

No, they aren't.

Also, no you can't just ignore mirror image based on miss chance. If you could, you'd also ignore it after the first time you hit the caster.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not directly, it doesn't. But an Image's AC (since you can't outright target them) would be equivalent to your current AC - 5 for the purposes of removing one. Except, since you just said mechanical effects don't transfer to your Mirror Images, if you were dispelled of, for example, Mage Armor or Shield, and had to recast it, your Mirror Images' effective AC would actually be your current AC - 5, as well as the difference of any other adjustments in AC after applying Mirror Images, whether penalties or buffs. But that's if we want to argue that all mechanical effects don't transfer to your images, and that way leads to madness.

At no point does the Image have an AC, equivalent or otherwise, for any purpose, ever. The images cannot be individually targeted. If you miss the caster's AC by less than 5, you pop an image. Why on Earth do you think the image has any need for an AC? I went back to read the spell again to try to understand where you're coming from, but I can't figure it out.

Ok ok let me try this again. Blur isn't a visual effect that gives you a miss chance. It's a visual effect that grants you CONCEALMENT that gives you a miss chance. A caster can hide behind/within an illusionary field that grants concealment, but a mirror image can't hide behind or within itself.

I'll bring up my example with displacement again. Displacement effectively turns you invisible and places an image of you 2' away from where you actually are ("appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location"). If the subject then casts mirror image, where are the images? Are they clustered around where the subject is, or where he appears to be?

Does it matter?

_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

@Darksol Ok, I looked at Mirror Image again, and I think maybe you think an attacker always rolls to see if they are attacking the caster or a figment. (If you don't think that, then I am wrong and I apologize) They don't. The only make that roll if the attack roll is successful. If they miss the caster by 5 or less, they pop an image, no roll required. If they miss, they just miss.

@Serum I don't think it matters. Both spells do what they say they do. Mirror Image doesn't have an riders that would cause it to stop working. And everyone is still in the same square.

Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

You can't ignore words that are there. Shifting and wavering mean something, whereas 'concealment' is a general type of miss chance that in no way provides the sort of detail you seem to think it does.

You insist that the shifting and wavering image can't hide, when there is nothing in the rules that says the miss chance is solely from 'hiding' compare to shifting and wavering. This is your assumption.

A blurred image still shifts and wavers, and thus provides a miss chance. In fact, there is nothing in the rules that says this interpretation is less valid than yours.

Dallium wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, I'm arguing that, because the images have the same visual effects as the creature that has Blur cast on it, that it would receive the same benefits.

And that's nonsense. The caster has an magic field distorting his outline, causing the visual effect. The image is itself causing the visual effect. If you hit the visual effect around the caster, you hit a blur spell. If you hit the visual effect around the image, you hit the image.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
since the visuals of Blur and the mechanics of Blur are one and the same,

No, they aren't.

Also, no you can't just ignore mirror image based on miss chance. If you could, you'd also ignore it after the first time you hit the caster.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not directly, it doesn't. But an Image's AC (since you can't outright target them) would be equivalent to your current AC - 5 for the purposes of removing one. Except, since you just said mechanical effects don't transfer to your Mirror Images, if you were dispelled of, for example, Mage Armor or Shield, and had to recast it, your Mirror Images' effective AC would actually be your current AC - 5, as well as the difference of any other adjustments in AC after applying Mirror Images, whether penalties or buffs. But that's if we want to argue that all mechanical effects don't transfer to your images, and that way leads to madness.

At no point does the Image have an AC, equivalent or otherwise, for any purpose, ever. The images cannot be individually targeted. If you miss the caster's AC by less than 5, you pop an image. Why on Earth do you think the image has any need for an AC? I went back to read the spell again to try to understand where you're coming from, but I can't figure it out.

Ok ok let me try this again. Blur isn't a visual effect that gives you a miss chance. It's a visual effect that grants you CONCEALMENT that gives you a miss chance. A caster can hide behind/within an illusionary field that grants...

It's not nonsense. That's the entire basis on which Illusion spells are built upon, to make things seem what they actually aren't. The image shifting and wavering just like the Caster does means that it should logically receive the same benefits as the Caster does. It's no different than a character interacting with a real door versus an illusory door based on the real one (that they failed the save on), the character would react equally towards both subjects, illusory or not, because the character perceives and interacts with both doors exactly the same.

Yes, they are. The distortions are what is granting you the concealment, which is what is granting you the miss chance. It's entirely visual. Which is precisely why they included the Blinded Creature clause to emphasize that very point.

Actually, I could, based on the factor that it's easier to hit an image by lacking a miss chance compared to the caster who possesses it, according to you. The inverse is also true, as you stated, but either manner conveys my point that there can't be an in-between, because it opens up obviously unintended shenanigans like we've just described. They either work fully, or not at all. And if they don't work at all, I can still target the caster based on different visuals.

You just described its effective AC, which is the Caster's AC - 5, which is what I was getting at. Point is that if your AC ever moves up or down either during or after Mirror Images being cast, your Images' effective AC would not change due to your claim of your Images not receiving any mechanical benefit from your character.

It doesn't matter how you phrase your argument, whether it's the spell giving you a random miss chance, or concealment, or whatever; unless you can prove that the visual distortions granted by the spell aren't in any way linked with the mechanics of the spell, it won't change my perception of how the combination works in conjunction with each other. Something which, at this point, I highly doubt is possible.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

You can't ignore words that are there. Shifting and wavering mean something,

No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

Quote:

You insist that the shifting and wavering image can't hide, when there is nothing in the rules that says the miss chance is solely from 'hiding' compare to shifting and wavering.

Uh, yes there is. You gain concealment. That's the miss chance. This isn't blink, where you really aren't there.

Quote:

A blurred image still shifts and wavers, and thus provides a miss chance. In fact, there is nothing in the rules that says this interpretation is less valid than yours.

What? No. Absolutely not. The images don't gain the effects of blur, per the rules. That's unarguable. Mirror Image functions exactly the way it says it does. So does Blur. This has never been about whether the images actually, per the rules, gain the miss chance. Of course they don't. Per the rules, the images don't even change to match the caster if the caster changes, and that doesn't matter, because Mirror Image doesn't have any clauses that would make it stop working.

This has always been about how, conceptually, it SHOULD work. If you wanna bring RULES into it, the Mirror Images don't benefit from Blur because nobody cast Blur on them. Period. There is no argument to be had there. If you think there is, you need to go read the rules again.

Quote:
nonsense

So, can we take a minute to appreciate that this discussion has started declaring that certain ideas on how "words and gestures learned through killing enough creatures which inherently rewrite the way light and perception function allowing imaginary friends to created even more imaginary imaginary friends and then go out of focus" make sense and other ideas do not? Not that this is right, not that it is wrong but am I the only one who finds it amusing on some level?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's no different than a character interacting with a real door versus an illusory door based on the real one (that they failed the save on), the character would react equally towards both subjects, illusory or not, because the character perceives and interacts with both doors exactly the same.

Ok, that's it, I'm done. These scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. To call them "exactly the same" is so disingenuous it borders on outright lies. Good day.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

You can't ignore words that are there. Shifting and wavering mean something,

No they don't. Show me a definition of "shifting" or "wavering" somewhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. I'll wait. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

Quote:

You insist that the shifting and wavering image can't hide, when there is nothing in the rules that says the miss chance is solely from 'hiding' compare to shifting and wavering.

Uh, yes there is. You gain concealment. That's the miss chance. This isn't blink, where you really aren't there.

Quote:

A blurred image still shifts and wavers, and thus provides a miss chance. In fact, there is nothing in the rules that says this interpretation is less valid than yours.

What? No. Absolutely not. The images don't gain the effects of blur, per the rules. That's unarguable. Mirror Image functions exactly the way it says it does. So does Blur. This has never been about whether the images actually, per the rules, gain the miss chance. Of course they don't. Per the rules, the images don't even change to match the caster if the caster changes, and that doesn't matter, because Mirror Image doesn't have any clauses that would make it stop working.

This has always been about how, conceptually, it SHOULD work. If you wanna bring RULES into it, the Mirror Images don't benefit from Blur because...

Congratulations, you win the internet. Now could you take a step back, maybe a chillaxative or two, and consider that there is a chance that some or all of the people posting opinions that differ from yours based them on the same rules that you did but came to different conclusions? That perhaps the 40ish people who hit FAQ did so because there is a legitimate grey area that could use official clarification instead of doing so because they couldn't read the rules?

Dallium wrote:
No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

Great, we'll stick to the mechanical text then.

You get a 20% miss chance. If you are missed due to concealment, then you are not 'missed by 5 or less', since adding 5 to the roll still doesn't hit. Therefore images are not popped.

Done.

All that text about outlines, and such is just fluff.

Position: Blur only affects Subject, not images
So if I have Mirror Image, and also an Illusion buff, the Illusion buff only works on me but not my images?
Excellent! I cast Invisibility on myself. Now my images are visible but I'm not. All the attacks are wasted on images, while I'm perfectly safe casting party buffs and Summon Monster spells

Position: Blur affects Subject visually, so it also affects images
Excellent! I cast Blur on myself. Now my images and I get the benefit of miss chance.

Either way, I win.
Those of you who say "no" can't have your cake and eat it too - there's an exploit either way

:)

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

Great, we'll stick to the mechanical text then.

You get a 20% miss chance. If you are missed due to concealment, then you are not 'missed by 5 or less', since adding 5 to the roll still doesn't hit. Therefore images are not popped.

Done.

All that text about outlines, and such is just fluff.

You only check for 20% concealment if you are hit.

1. Attack roll beats AC
2. Roll for mirror image hits caster
3. Roll concealment

or

1. Attack roll beats AC
2. Roll for mirror image hits image
3. Image pops

or

1. Attack roll misses AC by less than 5
2. Pops image

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Since some people seem to want to be super precise, mirror image doesn't require an image to be struck to pop:

mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Near misses are enough to pop images. So even if they are blurry, almost hitting them is still enough to pop them.

ryric wrote:

Since some people seem to want to be super precise, mirror image doesn't require an image to be struck to pop:

mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Near misses are enough to pop images. So even if they are blurry, almost hitting them is still enough to pop them.

This is correct. The Combat rules state that you roll miss chance only after your attack roll scores a bit. The attack roll is all that matters to mirror image.

Malignor wrote:

Position: Blur only affects Subject, not images

So if I have Mirror Image, and also an Illusion buff, the Illusion buff only works on me but not my images?
Excellent! I cast Invisibility on myself. Now my images are visible but I'm not. All the attacks are wasted on images, while I'm perfectly safe casting party buffs and Summon Monster spells

Position: Blur affects Subject visually, so it also affects images
Excellent! I cast Blur on myself. Now my images and I get the benefit of miss chance.

Either way, I win.
Those of you who say "no" can't have your cake and eat it too - there's an exploit either way

:)

if you are invisible your image are invisible since it copies your look, so no mirror image. and the spell even say that if you are invisible the spell has no effect, you are just trying to cheese thing here by changing what a spell do now, mirror image say that

''An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).''

blahpers wrote:
ryric wrote:

Since some people seem to want to be super precise, mirror image doesn't require an image to be struck to pop:

mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Near misses are enough to pop images. So even if they are blurry, almost hitting them is still enough to pop them.

This is correct. The Combat rules state that you roll miss chance only after your attack roll scores a bit. The attack roll is all that matters to mirror image.

How does that jive with blink? 50% of the time, you and your images are not even on the material plane to be hit (although the spell assumes that an attacker tries to time its hits, and so can negate the miss-chance partially if it can either see ethereal or affect ethereal).

As another example, the caster is on the ethereal plane with ethereal jaunt, affected by mirror image. A creature attacks the square he is in, but the caster has 100% miss-chance; however, it still could possibly roll high enough to hit (or near-miss) the caster if the miss-chance was not there. Is an image popped?

What's the difference between the two, given blink and ethereal jaunt differ only in the time spent on the ethereal plane?

ryric wrote:

Since some people seem to want to be super precise, mirror image doesn't require an image to be struck to pop:

mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Near misses are enough to pop images. So even if they are blurry, almost hitting them is still enough to pop them.

Missing due to concealment is not a miss by five or less.

Concealment is not checked unless your roll is sufficient to hit the target's AC. If the target's concealment roll is successful, no additional number added to the attack roll would result in a hit.

KingOfAnything wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

Great, we'll stick to the mechanical text then.

You get a 20% miss chance. If you are missed due to concealment, then you are not 'missed by 5 or less', since adding 5 to the roll still doesn't hit. Therefore images are not popped.

Done.

All that text about outlines, and such is just fluff.

You only check for 20% concealment if you are hit.

1. Attack roll beats AC
2. Roll for mirror image hits caster
3. Roll concealment

or

1. Attack roll beats AC
2. Roll for mirror image hits image
3. Image pops

or

1. Attack roll misses AC by less than 5
2. Pops image

And this works with blink exactly how?

Serum wrote:
blahpers wrote:
ryric wrote:

Since some people seem to want to be super precise, mirror image doesn't require an image to be struck to pop:

mirror image wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

Near misses are enough to pop images. So even if they are blurry, almost hitting them is still enough to pop them.

This is correct. The Combat rules state that you roll miss chance only after your attack roll scores a bit. The attack roll is all that matters to mirror image.

How does that jive with blink? 50% of the time, you and your images are not even on the material plane to be hit (although the spell assumes that an attacker tries to time its hits, and so can negate the miss-chance partially if it can either see ethereal or affect ethereal).

As another example, the caster is on the ethereal plane with ethereal jaunt, affected by mirror image. A creature attacks the square he is in, but the caster has 100% miss-chance; however, it still could possibly roll high enough to hit (or near-miss) the caster if the miss-chance was not there. Is an image popped?

What's the difference between the two, given blink and ethereal jaunt differ only in the time spent on the ethereal plane?

You have a 20% chance of your mirror image spell being ethereal when you cast it, per the blink text. If it's ethereal, the spell has no effect on material creatures attacking you unless they have the ability to strike ethereal targets. If it's material, then the images pop on a failed-by-5-or-less attack roll as usual. The images do not move back and forth between planes the way you do.

Ethereal jaunt is similar but easier to process. If you cast mirror image while ethereal, it's ethereal, and only matters when the attacker can strike ethereal things. If you cast mirror image while material and then cast ethereal jaunt, the images are still material, so they only matter when the attacker can strike material things.

so by your own logic if i cast bull strengh on me i have 20% chance that it only work on the material plane since it has 20% chance to be activated in the material plane, but in reality both of them will go with you while you phase out, the mirror image target is you don't care if you are in the material plane or no it follow you since they are just illusory copies of you that look like you, it create multiple illusion of you near you to fool a person trying to attack you

Dallium wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's no different than a character interacting with a real door versus an illusory door based on the real one (that they failed the save on), the character would react equally towards both subjects, illusory or not, because the character perceives and interacts with both doors exactly the same.
Ok, that's it, I'm done. These scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. To call them "exactly the same" is so disingenuous it borders on outright lies. Good day.

It's not a lie if it's something that I genuinely believe in. It'd be a lie if I said it just to convince you of something that, to my knowledge, isn't true, to some nefarious end, like the typical BBEG turning the forces of Good to his very whims. But I'm not doing that.

Let me expand on my example further: If I had two doors that are exactly the same, except one is an illusion and the other is not, then a character would not be able to tell the difference between them unless some other outside source tells them (i.e. detecting magic and spellcraft checks, interacting with the door, etc).

If the doors appear the same, and the illusion was created to copy exactly what the other door is, then it breaks the intent of the illusion to have it function differently outside of it being illusory to those who originally perceive it. For example, if a door is blurry, implying a 20% miss chance (AKA Concealment) because of it, so does the illusion that is mimicking the real door.

Now, you exchange the doors in question between a caster and one of his remaining Mirror Images, and the example only changes what the targets are (objects vs creatures).

@ Ryric: Concealment and AC are completely separate statistics and subjects, even if they may provide identical results (an attack that is unsuccessful). Stating that, because Mirror Images can be popped by missing by 5 or less, Concealment does not become a factor in determining the image being popped, does not add up in any sense or fashion within any scope of the rules, since Concealment has different rules that do not intercede with AC in any fashion.

Even Dallium's argument makes more sense, and I still disagree with it based on the fact that it outright betrays the concept of Mirror Images creating exact visual copies of you, and that Blur, being an entirely visual effect, means they would likewise benefit from it.

@ John Murdock: No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. If you're telling me that Blur doesn't convey Concealment because Mirror Images cannot benefit from your spells, then Invisibility cannot convey, well, Invisibility, for the same exact reason you disallow Blur to function.

Blur and Invisibility are both purely visual effects, and Invisibility actually grants you 50% miss chance versus those who cannot see invisible creatures, which means that if I'm Invisible, then my Mirror Images can be clearly seen, which means they don't benefit from any miss chance or other benefits from being Invisible.

blahpers wrote:

You have a 20% chance of your mirror image spell being ethereal when you cast it, per the blink text. If it's ethereal, the spell has no effect on material creatures attacking you unless they have the ability to strike ethereal targets. If it's material, then the images pop on a failed-by-5-or-less attack roll as usual. The images do not move back and forth between planes the way you do.

Ethereal jaunt is similar but easier to process. If you cast mirror image while ethereal, it's ethereal, and only matters when the attacker can strike ethereal things. If you cast mirror image while material and then cast...

So, if someone has mirror image up with blink, instead of rolling one 50% miss chance, you have to roll a 20% miss chance to check if an image has a chance to be popped, and then roll what to see if the character is missed?

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
blahpers wrote:

You have a 20% chance of your mirror image spell being ethereal when you cast it, per the blink text. If it's ethereal, the spell has no effect on material creatures attacking you unless they have the ability to strike ethereal targets. If it's material, then the images pop on a failed-by-5-or-less attack roll as usual. The images do not move back and forth between planes the way you do.

Ethereal jaunt is similar but easier to process. If you cast mirror image while ethereal, it's ethereal, and only matters when the attacker can strike ethereal things. If you cast mirror image while material and then cast...

So, if someone has mirror image up with blink, instead of rolling one 50% miss chance, you have to roll a 20% miss chance to check if an image has a chance to be popped, and then roll what to see if the character is missed?

If you are rolling the 20% miss chance, you've already determined that the attacker missed due to mirror image. You don't need to roll anything more.

What? If the blinker is on the ethereal plan, you can't roll to see if they missed due to mirror image, there are no images on the material plane to roll against.

Again, step-by-step, go through the rolls if a person has both mirror image and blink up.

_Ozy_ wrote:
blahpers wrote:

You have a 20% chance of your mirror image spell being ethereal when you cast it, per the blink text. If it's ethereal, the spell has no effect on material creatures attacking you unless they have the ability to strike ethereal targets. If it's material, then the images pop on a failed-by-5-or-less attack roll as usual. The images do not move back and forth between planes the way you do.

Ethereal jaunt is similar but easier to process. If you cast mirror image while ethereal, it's ethereal, and only matters when the attacker can strike ethereal things. If you cast mirror image while material and then cast...

So, if someone has mirror image up with blink, instead of rolling one 50% miss chance, you have to roll a 20% miss chance to check if an image has a chance to be popped, and then roll what to see if the character is missed?

If you cast mirror image while already blinking, you roll 20% to see whether the spell is material or ethereal.

If you cast blink while already mirror imaged, the images are and remain material, assuming no other relevant effects.

If a material attacker swings at you, check whether it hits. If it misses by 5 or less, and the images are also material, *pop*.

Darksol the Painbringer: even the spell say that if you are invisible the spell as no effect because you can't see the copies, so it implies that the copies are also invisible, because they copy your look, your appearance, and if you have none then it has no look to copy thus rendering the spell useless, while you are blur the copy looked blurry but the blurry part is still the image itself even the blurry false illusory door that look like the real door its still part the false door

blahpers: the mirror image is neither material or ethereal, if you get attack by an incorporeal touch attack, you still get to roll which image is still hit and since it is being hit it pops out, like i said the spell affect you and make appear copy of you in the same square as you, if you are in the material plane so does the image,, if you blink out and are now in the ethereal plane so does the image too, or else bull strengh that is also a spell that you can cast on yourself has 20% chance to not be material and if you do roll that 20% then bull strength has no effect when you are on the material plane which become ridiculous, mirror image is an illusion that is on you so it follow you, you teleport to another plane it will be also teleported to that plane

 51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>